Poll: Manditory Service in the US

[Deg]

I would say no based on the fact that dramatically increasing the armed forces or creating a new volunteer force would create quite a few economic issues.

For one thing, who is going to pay for all of these new mandatory soldiers/civic workers? I would think the main reason that service in the military pays somewhat well and provides you with funds for college is because...not many people are in it. If you made military duty mandatory you would be adding hundreds of thousands of people to the pay roll with no increase in budget. Cuts would have to be made somewhere.

But lets say it?s all volunteer work. Well, what are you going to have all those people do? Clean parks? Ok, but you don?t really need that large a force of people to do that, community service groups are able to do it with rather small numbers infrequently throughout the year. After you get the initial clean up done, then you will just have volunteers standing around with nothing to do. If you move them into civic work you are then creating competition with the private industry. Why hire workers for community upkeep work when you have access to these mandatory workers, who are legal and totally free.

Also I am not so sure that having mandatory service would be of any real boon to ones resume. After all, if its mandatory then everyone has to do it and that means its no longer special. Like attending middle school and high school, its just something that?s expected of you.

I know other countries have mandatory military service and such, but in most (I think) cases they are smaller than the United States (population wise). And this seems like one of those situations that scaling up creates problems exponentially. Kind of like how an ant works fine at its tiny size, but if you blew it up to the size of a horse its exoskeleton would just collapse on itself.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

I think it would be interesting to have some sort of mandatory community service for teenagers, it would build character(I hate saying that) and keep kids out o' trouble. something like litter patrol, and superficial community maintainance like painting and such. and gain citizenship for it, the right to vote and other stuff. reminds me of starship troopers... but whatever

 

[Rankao]

I would say no based on the fact that dramatically increasing the armed forces or creating a new volunteer force would create quite a few economic issues.

For one thing, who is going to pay for all of these new mandatory soldiers/civic workers? I would think the main reason that service in the military pays somewhat well and provides you with funds for college is because...not many people are in it. If you made military duty mandatory you would be adding hundreds of thousands of people to the pay roll with no increase in budget. Cuts would have to be made somewhere.

But lets say it?s all volunteer work. Well, what are you going to have all those people do? Clean parks? Ok, but you don?t really need that large a force of people to do that, community service groups are able to do it with rather small numbers infrequently throughout the year. After you get the initial clean up done, then you will just have volunteers standing around with nothing to do. If you move them into civic work you are then creating competition with the private industry. Why hire workers for community upkeep work when you have access to these mandatory workers, who are legal and totally free.

Also I am not so sure that having mandatory service would be of any real boon to ones resume. After all, if its mandatory then everyone has to do it and that means its no longer special. Like attending middle school and high school, its just something that?s expected of you.

I know other countries have mandatory military service and such, but in most (I think) cases they are smaller than the United States (population wise). And this seems like one of those situations that scaling up creates problems exponentially. Kind of like how an ant works fine at its tiny size, but if you blew it up to the size of a horse its exoskeleton would just collapse on itself.

Likely the best argument so far. I agree and that's why I realize it is not possible for us in the US. I know some people who feel its a reduction in their rights, but its like having the government throw you in prison for [place crime here] a reduction of your rights. Contrary to peoples beliefs you don't have to live in the United States, it is very much a choice.

The problem is that its not economical to do something like this, and defeats the purpose of living in America in the first place.

 

[mokes310]

I believe any sort of conscription will help change the way we (Americans & elected officers) think about our global actions. For example, if conscription wasn't in place, you had a kid, and you were pro-war, would you still feel the same if it was in place?

Personally, I believe that we should have a two year conscription into Military, Civil Service or Peace Corps. In addition to that, I believe that pay should reflect the level of risk you take, i.e. Military gets paid the most, Peace Corps is second, and Civil Service is third. If we truely are "created equal," shouldn't our service to country reflect that?

 

[Rankao]

I believe any sort of conscription will help change the way we (Americans & elected officers) think about our global actions. For example, if conscription wasn't in place, you had a kid, and you were pro-war, would you still feel the same if it was in place?

Personally, I believe that we should have a two year conscription into Military, Civil Service or Peace Corps. In addition to that, I believe that pay should reflect the level of risk you take, i.e. Military gets paid the most, Peace Corps is second, and Civil Service is third. If we truly(fixed) are "created equal," shouldn't our service to country reflect that?

That is also part of why I think it should be required. How can you truly appreciate the fact that the people in the past die for our country without being there. You can't understand the gamble without throwing dice on the table. You can imagine something like that, but you can't fully understand. Its like saying to someone who just lost everyone they know to a tragic car accident. You imagine how tough it is to go one, but you can't relate unless you've been there in some way.

However, there is a reason why these people when to war for their children, so they would have the opportunity to choose the same for their children. And that is where I see the problem is.

 

[mokes310]

I would say no based on the fact that dramatically increasing the armed forces or creating a new volunteer force would create quite a few economic issues.

For one thing, who is going to pay for all of these new mandatory soldiers/civic workers? I would think the main reason that service in the military pays somewhat well and provides you with funds for college is because...not many people are in it. If you made military duty mandatory you would be adding hundreds of thousands of people to the pay roll with no increase in budget. Cuts would have to be made somewhere.

But lets say it?s all volunteer work. Well, what are you going to have all those people do? Clean parks? Ok, but you don?t really need that large a force of people to do that, community service groups are able to do it with rather small numbers infrequently throughout the year. After you get the initial clean up done, then you will just have volunteers standing around with nothing to do. If you move them into civic work you are then creating competition with the private industry. Why hire workers for community upkeep work when you have access to these mandatory workers, who are legal and totally free.

Also I am not so sure that having mandatory service would be of any real boon to ones resume. After all, if its mandatory then everyone has to do it and that means its no longer special. Like attending middle school and high school, its just something that?s expected of you.

I know other countries have mandatory military service and such, but in most (I think) cases they are smaller than the United States (population wise). And this seems like one of those situations that scaling up creates problems exponentially. Kind of like how an ant works fine at its tiny size, but if you blew it up to the size of a horse its exoskeleton would just collapse on itself.

Sorry for the spastic post, but I didn't read Deg's post as well as I should have.

In terms of budgets and economics, the taxpayers would pay for this. I know, it sounds crazy, but ask yourself, are we really spending our money wisely in the first place? For example, look up these two military projects that have failed to make the cut: Crusader Artillery Project; Commanche Stealth Helicopter. After looking at the BILLIONS we've spent on those TWO FAILED projects, would you agree that those are projects worth cutting in favor of freeing up capitol for more civic related projects?

In terms of civic service/volunteer work, do you really believe that private corporations perfom this work? If so, I suggest that you take a trip down to your local city hall and ask who performs these tasks. Yes, in some situations, private companies perform this work, BUT, they have often been subsidized by their local municipality since this work is infrequent and uncommon.

When you look at a boost to a resume, does working at the local McDonalds boost your standing with anyone? Does any high school job or job you had during college really help your standing when you're trying to get a real job?

I would love to continue this debate, as it's one of the best I've seen on here!

Cheers!

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

A friend of mine from San Jose attended a school that made it a requirement to spend forty hours doing community service. I told him I would have transferred or schemed my way out of going such.

Nevertheless this mandatory service is absolute nonsense. I cite myself, a young man with ambitious to begin his own career by starting a company - something I am immensely close to achieving at only twenty years of age - and would instead be forced to put aside my ambitious to assist the military or perform community service? Essentially you are demanding I toss my goals aside for a set amount of time; which would result in my increasing disdain of said community due to the fact my freedom of choice has been eliminated.

Beyond the above circumstances, with every rule there exists loopholes to be exploited. What would become of those who were intentionally problematic? They would have to be "dishonorably discharged" for lack of a better term and thus successfully removed themselves from this program. Another possibility would see many leaving the Country if it involved military service.

Definitely against anything mandatory, I chose my own path; write my own story and I shall not allow anyone else to force the chapters to be included.

 

[wrightofway]

If you replace the word "mandatory" with it's implied synonym "involuntary" and likewise "service" with "servitude" you may notice we have an amendment against such a thing.

 

[Balios]

What people are suggesting is mandated charity. That goes again everything charity is about. If charity was mandated then it would be called work instead of charity. You give your time, not have it taken from you.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Mokes, I don't mean to be rude, so I hope I don't come accross as such, but you realise that the military aspect of your plans is completely contrary to the current ethos of modern warfare. As far as I can tell, you are advocating that the military, instead of spending it's money on advanced weaponery, instead spends it on maintaining a large, conscript army. This is a highly flawed solution to military matters.

Firstly, a large army of unwilling conscripts is notoriously inefficent. Even with propaganda and good supplies, the simple fact was that proffessional, mercenary armies are always going to be superior to conscript armys in terms of morale, in terms of logistics and in terms of their ability to take the initiative.

Secondly- as Germany demonstrated against Poland, and would have against the Allies unless it hadn't been for the air force- it is far better to have advanced tech than numbers.

Consider that one Tiger could knock out I believe it was ten to twelve Shermans. A Panther achieved much the same ratio. Now, consider that in terms of resources, it only required four times the resources to produce a Panther/Tiger as it did a 34/Sherman?
We're damn lucky.

 

[ZenMonkey47]

maybe if it was a way to earn college credit or the like, I'd be in favor of offering service opportunities for young adults. However I think it'd be a poor idea for the government to institute mandatory military service in the near future. I think as a nation our faith in the government has been shaken, especially in regards to military action and will take some time to regain.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

They'll have to catch me first! I love my country and all that jazz, but the day I get drafted into the military is the day I become a proud Canadian.

 

[Balios]

Mokes, I don't mean to be rude, so I hope I don't come accross as such, but you realise that the military aspect of your plans is completely contrary to the current ethos of modern warfare. As far as I can tell, you are advocating that the military, instead of spending it's money on advanced weaponery, instead spends it on maintaining a large, conscript army. This is a highly flawed solution to military matters.

Firstly, a large army of unwilling conscripts is notoriously inefficent. Even with propaganda and good supplies, the simple fact was that proffessional, mercenary armies are always going to be superior to conscript armys in terms of morale, in terms of logistics and in terms of their ability to take the initiative.

Secondly- as Germany demonstrated against Poland, and would have against the Allies unless it hadn't been for the air force- it is far better to have advanced tech than numbers.

Consider that one Tiger could knock out I believe it was ten to twelve Shermans. A Panther achieved much the same ratio. Now, consider that in terms of resources, it only required four times the resources to produce a Panther/Tiger as it did a 34/Sherman?
We're damn lucky.

Byzantinum vs. the Turks (professional army vs muslim hoards) Turks win. It is about numbers and tactics, you would not win in WW2 if you didnt have numbers and tactics. Actually you dont even need tactics just look at what the red army did. They had weaker everything vs the Germans except numbers.

Shermans werent ment for tank vs tank combat like the tiger was, it was meant for infantry support. Besides a tiger is different than a panther. Tigers you would not like to run into unless you had infantry support but panthers you could knockout with tank vs tank combat.

Poland was weak and they were planning on being attacked by the tactics that prevailed in WW1 or the war to end all wars.

All and all it take leaders to win battles, tactics and numbers to win wars.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Not really cheese. You just had to go inside and repair it. If it was fragged beyond repair. (which means most likely that you've taken a direct hit from a heavy artillery uni or a British 17 pounder) then you have to replace the engine. Which is unnecesarily complex(the engine).

Interesting thing about the Sherman- it was most likely the worst tank of the 1944-45 period. Comparison:

T-34: Diesel engined, so longer range+fuel economy. Better gun, much better armour, same numbers. And moderately faster.

Cromwell: Same gun, much better engine, lower profile, much faster.

Churchil: If considered as a MBT, the Churchil is too slow to be much use. But as an infantry support tank, it rocks. Far better protected(Only allied tank to be capable of reliably surviving multiple hits from KwK 36 88 milimetre guns), same gun (contrary to popular beleif, by June '44 the Churchill had the same QF 75mm as the Sherman).

Pershing: Tiger equivalent.

Wolverine: Fast, but also grotesquely underarmoured, hideously vulerable to mortars/artillery, and outperformed by the Sherman VC Firefly.

Josef Stalin II: Heavier, similar speed to, and much better armamanent/armour than a Sherman. Similar to the Tiger, but with a much lower-velocity 122mm artillery gun.

KVI/II: Awful tank. Slow, ungainly, poor offroad and same gun as the T-34. utter waste of space.

Axis Tanks:

Stug (Sturmgeschitz) III: Mid-velocity 75 milimetre gun. Similar armour to the Sherman, no turret BUT a much lower profile.

Panzer IV: Faster, tougher and better armed (long-barreled 75mm had much better AP qualities) than the Sherman.

Panzer V (Panther): 10:1 kill ratio. That says it all, I fear.

Panzer VI (Tiger): Same, but frightening, and THE SAME SPEED AS A SHERMAN. That does not bode well.

Panzer VI II (Bengal/Royal/King Tiger): Slower than the Sherman, but massivley outclassed it in terms of armour, firepower and well, everything.

 

[742]

compulsory service bad. not just because it would suck, but because it wouldnt be special, you wouldnt get to feel good when you did something good, its like when you were 8 and your parents forced you to apologize, you were never REALLY sorry, you just ACTED sorry. often not even that without prompting.

look at mandatory education systems VS elective education systems.

 

[EzraPound]

The idea of mandatory military service seems to run contrary to core American values, i.e. that you have the freedom to live without the government intervening (in this respect, it is unsurprising the U.S. has not implemented, say, mandatory voting). Moreover, the implications of mandatory service of the more gritty variant are sometimes catastrophic for certain parties: in Finland they have it, for example, and there has been numerous examples of homosexuals having killed themselves during their service.